Our views were called for so here 'tis mine:
I have read the responses and wanted to get a feel for others' views before posting. It is kind of difficult to address because I believe there are two different items in confusion 1) constitutionality in regards to flag burning laws 2) Congress amending the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration as a criminal action.
Some of my thoughts in this post have resulted from reading Dr. Ron Paul's views on the subject. I believe he has covered it pretty well. I am by no means a constitutional scholar, so credit goes to Dr. Paul for the correct points and to me for the incorrect ones.
I suppose the first place to start is my views on the news story which was the topic starter. Personally, I think flag burners are unpatriotic attention seekers. Burning a flag is the political equivalent of a child throwing a temper tantrum. If they hate America enough to burn the flag then they have freedom to leave.
The flag does not represent a political viewpoint or philosophy. It is certainly not a political symbol. It does represent us all who are Americans, past, present and future. I hope the SC decision regarding the constitutionality of state laws dealing with flag burning is overturned some day. The woman in the story is guilty as charged, and she did violate laws on the books concerning flag mistreatment. There are reasons for these laws to maintain the peace. To do this at a military funeral is disgusting beyond belief.
I believe anyone willfully and maliciously desecrating the flag should be arrested, fined and jailed. That's my personal point of view. If this were to be put up for a vote to become state law, that is how I would vote. If the state adopted this as law, I think it would be constitutional because... anything not specifically allowed Congress by the Constitution is allowed to the states to decide.
A common misconception is that the Bill of Rights grants us rights. Actually the Bill of Rights lists what Congress cannot do. Constitutionally speaking, Congress is not allowed to make any law prohibiting freedom of speech. A state, however, may see the act of burning a flag as disruptive of the peace. This would be completely constitutional, i.e. Congress is prohibited from making such laws but states are not. It would be up to the states to enforce the laws and provide funding for enforcement as they see fit.
So you can be for state laws against flag burning and defend the Constitution at the same time. As long as Congress isn't involved, it is constitutional. I honestly have thought about this topic for several days. It really bothered me because the free speech arguments (here and elsewhere) are cleverly laid out to imply if someone is against flag burning then they must not believe in freedom. This just didn't sound "right" to me. Even though flag burning is repugnant, it's the right of the individual if they feel like doing it. Well I don't believe that at all. I don't buy that American soldiers died in war so flag burners could have their freedom of speech in the form of burning our national symbol.
The only way it could be connected to freedom of speech is because Congress is considering an amendment to the Constitution regarding flag desecration. This in and of itself is not a constitutional issue, however, usage of the term "desecration" and ensuing laws would be problematical, and this is where I believe the confusion and controversy lies.
Les
